Bruce Morito An Ethic of Mutual Respect The Covenant Chain and Aboriginal-Crown Relations Sample Material © 2012 UBC Press Contents Preface and Acknowledgments / vii A Note on Terminology / xiii Introduction / 1 1 The Historical Context / 18 2 Structure and Function of the Covenant Chain Treaty Relationship / 67 3 Reputation and the Role of Key Agents / 106 4 The Transcultural, Transhistorical Ethic of the Covenant Chain / 157 Epilogue / 193 Notes / 197 Bibliography / 211 Index / 217 Sample Material © 2012 UBC Press Preface and Acknowledgments Is it possible for culturally divergent peoples, Aboriginal and western European, to have a mutually recognized, respectful relationship? This became a central question in my attempt to understand the struggle be- tween the Chippewas of Nawash-Saugeen, who occupy the shores of the Bruce Peninsula on Georgian Bay, and the province of Ontario over Aboriginal fishing and treaty rights. Following the province’s defeat in the courts – owing, in part, to the court’s recognition of treaty rights and an imperial proclamation of 1847 by Queen Victoria – it continued to assert jurisdictional control over the management of recreational fisheries.1 Man- agement practices such as stocking Pacific salmon conflicted with the com- munity’s commitment to protect indigenous (and commercial) species, especially lake trout and white fish. The Nawash view this commitment as part and parcel of treaty and Aboriginal rights.I am grateful to the Chippewas of Nawash for explaining and allowing me to witness their con- flicts with the Crown, at both the provincial and federal levels, and for al- lowing me to participate in discussions of these rights. The experience not only widened my appreciation of issues concerning justice and crosscultural understanding, it also deepened my understanding of the value of examin- ing these issues from a philosophical or ethical perspective. Will Kymlicka’s conceptualization of multiculturalism and liberal demo- cratic principles formed the initial framework for this study, but interactions with friends and colleagues eventually led me to seek an alternative frame- work.2 “We are not just one cultural group among others!” I was told. “Aboriginal rights are not just about being protected against arbitrary dis- crimination. They are rights by virtue of our being here first.” Even more radically, they argued, “There is no word in our language for right; we have responsibilities toward the land and one another.” Despite Kymlicka’s efforts to address at least some of these concerns (e.g., to maintain a distinction between Aboriginal and other minority rights), I found myself looking to Aboriginal peoples’ historical treaty relationship with the Crown for clues Sample Material © 2012 UBC Press viii Preface and Acknowledgments to explain their dissatisfaction with the liberal framework. I was told medicine was a word I needed to understand, because it was more central to Aboriginal conceptions of treaties and justice than was right. The tension between in- dividual and collective rights added to the confusion. These complexities played a part in my examination of what it means to respect a people. Respect, I learned, involves understanding a people’s way of framing concern: in other words, their worldview and related systems of values, normative commit- ments, and knowledge acquisition. Some believe it is impossible to develop true respect since it involves overcoming fundamental cultural barriers, including differing ontologies, as anthropologists John Clammer, Sylvie Poirier, and Eric Schwimmer argue. Traditional Aboriginal perspectives were shaped by such fundamentally dif- ferent metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological assumptions that it is either impossible or extremely difficult for non-Aboriginal people to under- stand Aboriginal peoples’ normative positions or viewpoints.3 Indeed, many Aboriginal people have told me that they view and experience the world differently when they switch from their own language to English. If two peoples do not share the same conceptions and perceptions of time, place, existence, knowledge, and language, then developing a moral framework of mutual respect and understanding may well be impossible. All we can do is find the political and legal means to negotiate compromises, approximations of mutual respect. Yet a mutual demonstration of respect continues to be important among Aboriginal people. Elders (old people) have consistently used terms such as mnaadenmowin (respect, in Anishnaabemowin, the Ojibway language) to explain what they view as the central problem of intercultural relations. Since respect (respect for the law, respect for individual autonomy, respect for cultural differences, and so on) is, in essence, a moral expectation, it became a key point of reference for my analysis of the differences between cultural perspectives. Darlene Johnston (Anishnaabe), my colleague and a legal scholar, often told me that, if I was to understand what I was seeking to understand, I would need to go back to the beginning. “Back to the begin- ning,” I found out, meant examining the relationship from its point of in- ception. Because of her, I began the historical research on which this book is based. I want to thank Patricia Kennedy of Library and Archives Canada for helping me along this path. She quickly grasped what I was seeking to do and not only helped train me in the use of the archive’s referencing system but also planted seeds that would grow into the methodology I used to identify ethical factors in the historical record. Patricia noted how important it was to examine records from various perspectives (including the financial) and pointed out a number of primary and secondary sources that stimulated new ideas about how I could approach the data. I also wish to thank Valerie- Ann Lutz at the American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, for Sample Material © 2012 UBC Press Preface and Acknowledgments ix similar reasons. After listening patiently to me as I explained what I was trying to do, she brought me material I would never have imagined examin- ing and showed me how I might use the finding aids to greater effect. I also wish to extend my gratitude to Eric Johnston, who on more than one occasion said to me, “We need to go back to the wampum.” Although I had little understanding of wampum when he made these comments, I knew wampum was important, not only to the Anishnaabek but also to the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). I was already somewhat familiar with the Six Nations wampum reclamation or repatriation efforts in southern Ontario. Eric’s statement helped give my archival research focus and, as it turned out, a surprise. I initially conducted a keyword search to extract whatever ethical significance I could from the way the historical record described wampum. I expected to find only fragments of data pertaining to wampum, but I in- stead found a rich set of descriptions of wampum use. Wampum were de- scribed not only as cultural artifacts but as intercultural legal and political devices as well. This latter aspect of wampum use is central to my interpreta- tion of the Covenant Chain as an intercultural ethic. The writings of Olive Dickason and Bruce Trigger also prepared me to revise my assumptions about Aboriginal peoples and North American his- tory; however, it was not until I actually read the records of the Department of Indian Affairs that I was faced with the full significance of what taking a revisionist historical perspective implied.4 The experience forced me to shift both my perspective and method because they were based on an assumption – that Aboriginal peoples were victimized by irresistible colonial forces – that conflicted so much with what I was reading that it was impossible to make sense of the material. I am also grateful to those who have asked me to contribute to analysis of the problem of crosscultural understanding and mutual respect. I wish to thank CIDA/Environment Canada for allowing me to help critique initial drafts of Guidelines for Environmental Assessments and Traditional Knowledge.5 I also wish to acknowledge the work of scholars in related fields who have influenced my view of how successful intercultural relations can be formed. For example, Nancy Turner, an ethnobotanist at the University of Victoria, has worked with the Nuu-chah-nulth on Vancouver Island to foster a shift away from demands for finality and closure to bring about a more mutually respectful relationship. Her work brings Western scientific descriptions of the flora and fauna of the Carmanah Valley together with Nuu-chah-nulth knowledge to provide a mutually informed database. It attempts to create a crosscultural dialogue in the interest of finding common ground in the arena of natural resource management.6 In 2001, Aboriginal people and academics came together to discuss the question of Aboriginal rights at “Aboriginal Voices and Aboriginal Rights,” a conference held in Winnipeg on 22-25 June. Elders, who were asked to Sample Material © 2012 UBC Press x Preface and Acknowledgments respond to the academics’ talks, often gave their responses in Anishnaabe- mowin (the language of the Anishnaabek), in part to drive home the point that the terms of reference used in discussing Aboriginal rights were not entirely in keeping with Aboriginal peoples’ perspectives and practices. Each day of the conference began with a pipe and smudge ceremony, the Anish- naabek’s way of clearing the mind and heart to speak honest and true words. The conference took place at the beginning of my archival research, and it was not long before I was reading about the same practices in historical records. Even some modern academics’ impatience with these ceremonies was reflected in the record, which helped me identify divergent attitudes among Europeans and their Aboriginal interlocutors. I continue to benefit from discussions with Sandra Tomsons and Lorraine Brundige (now Mayer), the conference organizers, on these matters. I am especially thankful to Aboriginal friends and colleagues who have helped me to understand their side of the story.